Trading in influence, or influence peddling, is on form of political corruption and is often also called influence peddling. It is on of the three general classifications of corruption with petty corruption and grand corruption. When illegal actions happen alongside legal actions such as illegal political
campaign contributions (i.e. influencing with money), it is called trading in influence. [1]UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) defines trading in influence as a corrupt act when it is intentional. Intentional means that a public official or any other person that has influence over the person in decision-making accepts an advantage or gift from a third person who would gain from influencing decision-making. Revised an intentional act of trading in influence is to knowingly attempt to "buy" off someone else's influence and ask that person to influence decision-maker. [2]
This is seen as a type of bribery, which is used to influence public decision-making or private actors through a third party having that influence and power to possibly make a change. [3] There is though a major difference between bribery and trading in influence as in the latter part the recipient of the bribe is not in position to make decisions but can possibly influence such persons. This can lead to a situation where the person making the decision does not even know that he or she is being a part of a corrupt act. [4]
Former French president Nicholas Sarkozy was detained for trading in influence during his political career. He was alleged on taking money from controversial sources and as an exchange to have influenced certain people as a favor to others, which have been against the law. [6]
Argentinas Vice President Amado Boudou was accused of trading in influence amongst other corrupt activities. Few members of his family and friends were also accused of being a part of this activity.[7]
Critisism
Is is hard to distinguish the difference between trading in influence and legal lobbying. The Council of Europe Convention draws the line to be between "improper influence" and normal influence and UN convention criminalizes actions where influence is "abused". Even these slightly different definitions may make it hard to separate legal actions from illegal and OECD Convention does not cover trading in influence. These difficulties in distinguishing between legal lobbying and illegal influencing may be a reason why many countries that have signed Istanbul Action Plan don't recognize trading in influence as being part of corruption despite the fact that UNCAC recommends this. [8]
The Finnish perspective
Finland has received some critique from GRECO concerning the criminalization of trading in influence and urgent reconsiderations were asked to do. Authorities in Finland did admit that the criminalization of trading in influence affect how corruption is perceived in Finland and changes the understanding of corruption to a more comprehensive direction. Person that is sentenced either in trading in influence or rewarding trading in influence will face fines or maximum two years of prison. However these sanctions are not seen to comprehend with sanctions from other corruptive activities in Finland according to GRECO. [9] In 2011 this matter was included the government's programme and Jyrki Katainen (Prime Minister of Finland at the time) concluded that "The Government will outline the regulatory alternatives for the criminalization of trading in influence". [10]
^ Stanwick, Peter & Stanwick, Sarah, (2013), Understanding Business Ethics, p. 110
Definition
Trading in influence, or influence peddling, is on form of political corruption and is often also called influence peddling. It is on of the three general classifications of corruption with petty corruption and grand corruption. When illegal actions happen alongside legal actions such as illegal politicalTable of Contents
This is seen as a type of bribery, which is used to influence public decision-making or private actors through a third party having that influence and power to possibly make a change. [3] There is though a major difference between bribery and trading in influence as in the latter part the recipient of the bribe is not in position to make decisions but can possibly influence such persons. This can lead to a situation where the person making the decision does not even know that he or she is being a part of a corrupt act. [4]
//Source: Freedom From Fear Magazine [5]
Known cases of trading in influence
Critisism
Is is hard to distinguish the difference between trading in influence and legal lobbying. The Council of Europe Convention draws the line to be between "improper influence" and normal influence and UN convention criminalizes actions where influence is "abused". Even these slightly different definitions may make it hard to separate legal actions from illegal and OECD Convention does not cover trading in influence. These difficulties in distinguishing between legal lobbying and illegal influencing may be a reason why many countries that have signed Istanbul Action Plan don't recognize trading in influence as being part of corruption despite the fact that UNCAC recommends this. [8]The Finnish perspective
Finland has received some critique from GRECO concerning the criminalization of trading in influence and urgent reconsiderations were asked to do. Authorities in Finland did admit that the criminalization of trading in influence affect how corruption is perceived in Finland and changes the understanding of corruption to a more comprehensive direction. Person that is sentenced either in trading in influence or rewarding trading in influence will face fines or maximum two years of prison. However these sanctions are not seen to comprehend with sanctions from other corruptive activities in Finland according to GRECO. [9] In 2011 this matter was included the government's programme and Jyrki Katainen (Prime Minister of Finland at the time) concluded that "The Government will outline the regulatory alternatives for the criminalization of trading in influence". [10]